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 7213 times)

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4460
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2017, 02:50:40 PM »
Well its just opinion on limiting amount transferred to just enough depending on value of aircraft. The conditions to disallow such buy to scrap is quite complicated to thought, even to code. If you have more idea on how to prevent it do state here and we can discuss.

The 2nd solution is just rough idea, like stated, its not favourable for airlines listing lots of aircraft in um. If you have more improvement idea regarding the limitation do also state it here.

The topic that Sami started is about a rule change and not how to enforce a rule that doesn't currently exist... So I'll ask you a second time - should the "buy junk to scrap" cash transfer be a permitted or unpermitted practice in the game?

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2017, 02:57:52 PM »
Permitted.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2017, 03:01:49 PM »
If it's a yes or no, I'd say no.
There are other ways to help an airline in this game (allowed or condoned ways) and thus that practice that is far from what an airline is actually supposed to do IRL (and also for that very reason) is not quite legit.

Offline arefixz

  • Members
  • Posts: 166
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2017, 03:08:52 PM »
The topic that Sami started is about a rule change and not how to enforce a rule that doesn't currently exist... So I'll ask you a second time - should the "buy junk to scrap" cash transfer be a permitted or unpermitted practice in the game?

Well of course you knew the answers already. Not permitted. So I guess we don't want system restriction to enforce this things instead enforcement by admins is what better? Then simple, just add one more option on "report rule violation" that existed on airline profile. This will be checked by admins (if there is more than sami) and they can dig log file of that airline to see if airline is doing such thing.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4460
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2017, 03:46:19 PM »
Well of course you knew the answers already. Not permitted. So I guess we don't want system restriction to enforce this things instead enforcement by admins is what better? Then simple, just add one more option on "report rule violation" that existed on airline profile. This will be checked by admins (if there is more than sami) and they can dig log file of that airline to see if airline is doing such thing.

I have seen a lot of rule enforcement changes made here over the years in haste in which the people who wanted the rules enforced often regreted how the enforcement ended up working - as there are often many unintended consequences of automated enforcement on highly subjective rules. That's why I'm trying to focus the conversation on the rule itself, what should be allowed versus not, rather than additional game mechanics that are intended to be enforcement of a rule that currently doesn't exist in an explicit form.

An enforcement discussion should happen, but I feel it's premature to do that before there's an actual rule....

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8040

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2017, 03:52:35 PM »
Limiting same aircraft listing in um for 3 per month.

This is the worst idea of the thread.  A player who only logs in occasionally (to do some housekeeping) would be penalized greatly compared to player who is online all the time.

Offline arefixz

  • Members
  • Posts: 166

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2017, 04:36:58 PM »
This is the worst idea of the thread.  A player who only logs in occasionally (to do some housekeeping) would be penalized greatly compared to player who is online all the time.

More than 4 people including myself disagree with that. Let's just agree to stop at that. It was just spur out idea that is drafted without possible thought.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2017, 04:42:23 PM »
So we’re talking mainly about inter alliance help it seems.

When someone outside your alliance can help even more if we’re talking price. I still maintain the position of letting sleeping dogs lie. The last major example of this still went under in a fantastic blaze of shame, leaving only detriment to the aiding party. Loss of profit is punishment enough.

Offline MuzhikRB

  • Members
  • Posts: 987
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2017, 08:22:09 PM »
The first proposal about shrinking the window between book and minimum alliance pricing will not not solve the "buy junk to scrap". Let's think it through in each scenario - suppose scrap value = 200k, minimum alliance = 2m and max alliance = 4m

1. Suppose book value = 1m, sale would be for 1m.
2. Suppose book value is 5m, sale would be for 5m.



why not adding age parameter to formula ?
Max alliance price:
age 1-2 = book price +30%
Age 2-6 = book price +10%
Age 6-11 = book pirce
Age 11-14 = book price -10%
Age 14-16 = book price -30%
age 16+ = scrap price +5%

Rule 2 - restrict the same plane trading to 1 per year between players. for age 1-12. and to 1 per 5 years for age 12+
to limit the laundry via 3rd party (non-alliance) players.
restriction is resetted if plane bought by computer broker company (via um or after player bking)

something like this will eliminate buy-and-scrap help in 90% cases
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 08:24:33 PM by MuzhikRB »

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2017, 08:32:50 PM »
why not adding age parameter to formula ?
Max alliance price:
age 1-2 = book price +30%
Age 2-6 = book price +10%
Age 6-11 = book pirce
Age 11-14 = book price -10%
Age 14-16 = book price -30%
age 16+ = scrap price +5%

Rule 2 - restrict the same plane trading to 1 per year between players. for age 1-12. and to 1 per 5 years for age 12+
to limit the laundry via 3rd party (non-alliance) players.
restriction is resetted if plane bought by computer broker company (via um or after player bking)

something like this will eliminate buy-and-scrap help in 90% cases

I can agree to #1 but not #2. You’ll kill leasebacks.

Online schlaf

  • Members
  • Posts: 606
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2017, 08:34:13 PM »
Rule 2 - restrict the same plane trading to 1 per year between players. for age 1-12. and to 1 per 5 years for age 12+
to limit the laundry via 3rd party (non-alliance) players.
restriction is resetted if plane bought by computer broker company (via um or after player bking)

With that its no longer possible to help a alliancemate that is short on cash, with buying a aircraft and lease it to back to that same player!

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4460
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2017, 08:40:50 PM »
MuzhikRB and schlaf,

Regardless of the technical formula and/or enforcement, do you beleive that "buy junk to scrap" should be permitted or disallowed in the game rules?  What about the sale/lease back?

Offline MidWorld

  • Members
  • Posts: 579

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2017, 08:43:08 PM »
Looking into the planes' history I've noticed a more elegant way of money transfers that would survive any of the proposed amendments:

Airline A leases a plane from airline B for a long period of time. Airline A keeps it (or even flies it) for the minimum required time then cancels the lease. 50% of the entire remaining lease contract (which may exceed the cost of the plane many times) goes back to airline B together with the plane.

These tricks are unfair, but I agree that they only delay the inevitable.

Cheers

Online schlaf

  • Members
  • Posts: 606

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2017, 08:49:31 PM »
MuzhikRB and schlaf,

Regardless of the technical formula and/or enforcement, do you beleive that "buy junk to scrap" should be permitted or disallowed in the game rules?  What about the sale/lease back?

I personaly think its just fine as it is today.
If you want to help a friend (within or outside an alliance) by buying scrap-planes I dont see the problem. And before this thread I didnt even knew there was a problem at all..=)

Changing anything will only help the stronger airline and make the weaker one even weaker...

Offline Delta

  • Members
  • Posts: 122
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2017, 09:05:41 PM »
Here's my take on this. I see two reasons why this practise exists:

1/ People like to help their buddies. You can't do nothing against that.

2/ Rich airlines can afford to do it.

So instead of having new possibly complicated rules, I suggest a new feature: pay a dividend to shareholders each year, as airlines do in real life. The more profitable you are, the more you give to your shareholders, with perhaps a random factor that changes each year. This way airlines would not (or less) be able to build huge cash reserves (in real life, I don' believe even the best established airlines have tens of billions dollars of cash) and would therefore be less willing to help other airlines at a loss.

Airlines with no or low profits wouldn't pay dividend for the year considered.

What do you think? If i works, we don't even have to  decide if it should be permitted or not.

Offline MuzhikRB

  • Members
  • Posts: 987
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2017, 09:17:01 PM »
MuzhikRB and schlaf,

Regardless of the technical formula and/or enforcement, do you beleive that "buy junk to scrap" should be permitted or disallowed in the game rules?  What about the sale/lease back?


it should be limited.

want to help friend ? buy from him, but at average or below market price.

its should not be allowed to sell crap planes at max price.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #36 on: December 10, 2017, 09:46:03 PM »

it should be limited.

want to help friend ? buy from him, but at average or below market price.

its should not be allowed to sell crap planes at max price.
It’s a “free” market.

Offline bdnascar3

  • Members
  • Posts: 251
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #37 on: December 10, 2017, 09:56:33 PM »
I think it's funny in past conversations people have complained either that this game is too much of a game or too much of our not enough real life. Alliances exist in game and in real life . However in real life Airlines do help each other that's what alliances are for,also Airlines do fly unprofitable routes on purpose. For example American Airlines fly to Honolulu because frequent flyer likes flying there, however the route itself loses money.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #38 on: December 10, 2017, 10:47:51 PM »
They sure make avaibility on AA miles a pain to redeem.

But TBH DFW-HNL is actually more expensive than a comparable TATL fare on average.

Back to the point though. It’s such an infrequent happening to have a mass bailout that it honestly doesn’t need regulating past a case by case basis.

Offline dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1781

The 5 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2017, 01:04:21 AM »
why not adding age parameter to formula ?
Max alliance price:
age 1-2 = book price +30%
Age 2-6 = book price +10%
Age 6-11 = book pirce
Age 11-14 = book price -10%
Age 14-16 = book price -30%
age 16+ = scrap price +5%


Generally, I don't feel strongly that the existing system needs to be tweaked. I feel like we have a tendency to make rules for the sake of rules. If anything the game has been tilted to protect less successful airlines/less experienced players over time (some changes have improved the game, some I would question, but that's for a different thread). The problem with making such rules is that they frequently don't help them actually become better players because BKing (or almost BKing) is one of the strongest learning tools that exist. Without having gone through those scares in the early days, I wouldn't have learned as much as I did.

That being said, tying the sale price to book value is a terrible idea. Book value is purely an accounting amount, affected by purchase price, depreciation, etc. If one airline paid full price for a plane and another purchased in bulk and got the 20% (or more) discount - their book values would be different. Why should the amount they would be able to sell the plane for be different. If we want to add a rule that if you buy an aircraft from another airline, you can't sell or scrap it for x period. one year sounds reasonable to me.

If the issue is really that we are trying to avoid airlines helping each other, the mechanism we are doing this is horrible. We are creating convoluted game play rules to achieve an end that is not possible. We say the purpose of alliances is to help each other. So why not let them help each other. Allow alliances to fund loans to distressed airlines to use how they see fit. If I have the money and want to throw money into a sink hole - then why shouldn't I be allowed to do it. I have spent many games (not recently due to rule changes) of having competitors receiving this benefit and i can't say that it made the game less fun, or more fun. It just was a different challenge. I don't regret that in any way.

So if we want to prevent alliances from helping each other, or really any airline helping any other, then we should prevent airlines form selling planes to each other. I mean that's the logical conclusion of all of this. But does that make sense? Of course not.

So what is the answer? If we are really concerned about struggling airlines getting unfair help, make a simple rule, that an unprofitable airline (however defined) can no longer sell assets to other airlines. Does that make sense? Of course not.

So...i disagree that additional changes are necessary, but if we have to do something, what I propose is that if the airline is unprofitable, it can't sell assets above market price to alliance airlines. it's clear, simple, and loosely solves whatever problem we are trying to solve.

 

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.