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 7207 times)

Offline [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 1079
    • FmFreaks
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #60 on: December 11, 2017, 09:39:09 PM »
I believe that we first need to put the right words on what's this or that.
Helping another airline is one thing, and I think (and hope) it's always gonna be allowed.
On the other hand funding another airline is quite different and not accepted by game rules.

The problem is that both helping and funding are based on the same thing: money (wether it's cash, cheap planes or else).
So the difference is not the nature of the exchange, but rather the amount exchanged.

There will always be a grey zone, as defining wether something is still "helping" or already "funding" is quite hard. That limit will always remain impossible to draw clearly, as values change over time, and proportions are different, based on the companies' sizes. But at least we can try to define things a bit more.

So we're trying to discuss wether this or that is considered as allowed or not, and possibly to try to reduce the grey zone. Based on what happened in GW#2 where an airline bought dozens (don't remember the exact amount but it's huge) of ready-to-scrap planes from a fellow alliance member that was in difficulty. Was this helping or funding?

I think no one will complain if I buy 2 or 3 or even 10 planes above market prices from someone in my alliance to help him. But when that number reaches 100 or 200 planes, the practice is a tad different, as we're not talking about 20 or even 100 millions (GW#2 value), but about hundreds of million $ if not billions.

That's also the topic: when do we enter the grey zone, and when do we clearly enter in what's prohibited. The enforcement is then another topic.


And same goes when an airline supply 100 brand new planes for a team mate, with the possibilty of transfer millions pr frame from the rich one to the weaker member in the process. for a 727 today it be up to 16.7 mill profit pr plane sold to the rich member that way.
Thats would sure also be funding not only helping will it ?.
They key point is there is tons of options for transfering money, between alliance players, so why should one be forbidden but other ones not  ?

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #61 on: December 11, 2017, 09:49:41 PM »
Funding is helping. No problems with that. Happens all the time in real life as well.

Between friends, I can agree. Between companies, nope.
Capitalism means profit. When a company puts money elsewhere than in itself, it's not for that sake of the other company, it is because there is some interest somewhere (acquiring shares, access to technologies, for marketing purpose, to preserve the competitors of our its own competitor, etc.).
Otherwise it's called a foundation, not for profit (and even a foundation usually exists for marketing purposes).
Sure, you could probably find some example somewhere, but you cannot call it the usual way, as otherwise shareholders would hang the board high.
And nowhere can you find an example of an airline funding another one as high as hundreds of millions of $ (Sixties or Seventies $).

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #62 on: December 11, 2017, 09:59:21 PM »
And same goes when an airline supply 100 brand new planes for a team mate, with the possibilty of transfer millions pr frame from the rich one to the weaker member in the process. for a 727 today it be up to 16.7 mill profit pr plane sold to the rich member that way.
Thats would sure also be funding not only helping will it ?.

Sure. But (as far as I see things inside my alliance), we don't proceed that way. Rule is book or min AP, like it probably is in every alliance. And if it happens that a "poor" airline provides some expensive planes to a rich one, we're not talking about the same numbers but only on a 10-20 frames max, and usually less.
Why?
Only because the poor airline is not able to order 100 brand new planes in the first place.
And as I stated in an earlier post, it's the quantity that makes the difference between helping and funding.

They key point is there is tons of options for transfering money, between alliance players, so why should one be forbidden but other ones not  ?

For what I mean here, I'm talking about every option, not only the one that led to this thread.

Offline [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 1079
    • FmFreaks
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #63 on: December 12, 2017, 01:00:49 AM »
Sure. But (as far as I see things inside my alliance), we don't proceed that way. Rule is book or min AP, like it probably is in every alliance. And if it happens that a "poor" airline provides some expensive planes to a rich one, we're not talking about the same numbers but only on a 10-20 frames max, and usually less.
Why?
Only because the poor airline is not able to order 100 brand new planes in the first place.
And as I stated in an earlier post, it's the quantity that makes the difference between helping and funding.

And when are we defining a poor operation ? in start of the game most airlines make big profit now we soon get fuel spikes etc.
In mid 60 i brought 50 727 for you, you then now buy those at max price from me i will earn 825 mill on that. money i can use to survieve the storm.  on min price i will earn around 320 mill, still a huge profit on loaning my spare cash out to you until the plane is delivered. Even if needed to take loans etc to do so it will be a golden deal.

Sure people as standard don't use max, they at least at A-Team use book or minimum what ever is most fair.
But for members not doing so good max will be option. as its allowed. And now the moving of big bucks to struggeling companies can begin.
Even at your 10-20 planes we at max price are talking hundreds of millions, that can be transfered that way.

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4460
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #64 on: December 12, 2017, 03:02:44 AM »
And when are we defining a poor operation ? in start of the game most airlines make big profit now we soon get fuel spikes etc.
In mid 60 i brought 50 727 for you, you then now buy those at max price from me i will earn 825 mill on that. money i can use to survieve the storm.  on min price i will earn around 320 mill, still a huge profit on loaning my spare cash out to you until the plane is delivered. Even if needed to take loans etc to do so it will be a golden deal.

Sure people as standard don't use max, they at least at A-Team use book or minimum what ever is most fair.
But for members not doing so good max will be option. as its allowed. And now the moving of big bucks to struggeling companies can begin.
Even at your 10-20 planes we at max price are talking hundreds of millions, that can be transfered that way.

That's a completely different type of transaction than the one in question though. Both players benefit in that situation as one player gets money and the other player gets the aircraft that they need for operations. Therefore, that's not a transaction where one side is the sole beneficiary - it shouldn't matter, in that case, whether the selling airline is doing poorly or not so poorly, so long as the sales take place within the alliance limit parameters...

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #65 on: December 12, 2017, 08:08:04 AM »
Even at your 10-20 planes we at max price are talking hundreds of millions, that can be transfered that way.

When I was talking of a 10-20 plane limit, it was not a proposal, it was just a to give an idea of the amount of money processed in the 60s in GW#2 for a basic MH plane at the end of its life.
And besides this, we entered a new era, numbers have risen quite a lot, the amounts are not the same.
What was the launch price of a 1049G? What will be the launch price of a 737-800?

That limit will always remain impossible to draw clearly, as values change over time

Offline VitoNg

  • Members
  • Posts: 97

The 4 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2017, 10:41:29 AM »
Even buying for scrap is not allowed, one can still say he/she is buying for re-sale. I did several times buying off 15yr+ aircraft then throw them again to UM. Even Sami set the limit of no scrapping within 1 year, one can list them to UM, wait for a year then scrap.
On the other hand, buying the scrap metal can be part of a bracket deal. I did once buying away someone's scrap metal then he is willing to take up my new aircraft. If aircraft deal are all within alliance max or min allowed price I don't see any problem there.

Online dagwood

  • Members
  • Posts: 734
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #67 on: December 12, 2017, 06:35:47 PM »
I agree with Zobelle above - is this really such a problem?  There are probably more important areas to be looking at. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

yes, I totally agree, if it is not broke, do not fix it

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2017, 10:04:54 PM »
Even buying for scrap is not allowed, one can still say he/she is buying for re-sale. I did several times buying off 15yr+ aircraft then throw them again to UM. Even Sami set the limit of no scrapping within 1 year, one can list them to UM, wait for a year then scrap.
On the other hand, buying the scrap metal can be part of a bracket deal. I did once buying away someone's scrap metal then he is willing to take up my new aircraft. If aircraft deal are all within alliance max or min allowed price I don't see any problem there.

Very good point.
Another pro for the Alliance mate with a supportive alliance.

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1122
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2017, 10:46:02 PM »
It seems like the idea of "helping" has morphed over the years into just about anything goes as long as we are winning mentality. The means one justifies to meet their ends is an empty shot on their morality I suppose. For some of you at least.

How massive money transferring is acceptable in one form or another, is beyond me. I apologize for my higher standards. I want to see AWS grow and be better then it was the day before.... and I don't see how this behavior's acceptance leads to that goal.


Talentz
Co-founder and Managing member of: The Star Alliance Group™ - A beta era, multi-brand alliance.

Offline Jake S

  • Members
  • Posts: 313
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #70 on: December 12, 2017, 11:23:35 PM »
It seems like the idea of "helping" has morphed over the years into just about anything goes as long as we are winning mentality. The means one justifies to meet their ends is an empty shot on their morality I suppose. For some of you at least.
The mentality behind some of these posts are starting to remind me a bit of a press conference with Michael O'Leary (Ryanair)...

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

Wagster

  • Former member
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #71 on: December 13, 2017, 07:24:56 PM »
Either allow money transfer or don't.

People want to transfer money but they can't, so they use the loopholes they can find.

If money transfer is to be forbidden I highly recommend renaming Alliances to "Friendship Union for Chatting and Knitting and nothing else", since you cannot operate as allies and shouldn't have the mindset of "you versus them" - just be aware people WANT to band together and operate as "they versus them" and they will continue to do so off-site, testing the limits of your every rule.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #72 on: December 14, 2017, 04:00:59 AM »
“Money transfers” can occur even outside of alliance and often can be much more egregious in nature due to more of a max/min extremes.

Offline Dasha

  • Members
  • Posts: 1078

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #73 on: December 14, 2017, 09:56:06 AM »
Sure. But (as far as I see things inside my alliance), we don't proceed that way. Rule is book or min AP, like it probably is in every alliance. And if it happens that a "poor" airline provides some expensive planes to a rich one, we're not talking about the same numbers but only on a 10-20 frames max, and usually less.
Why?
Only because the poor airline is not able to order 100 brand new planes in the first place.



And if the alliance is able to buy 100 new planes and then sell them to their alliance member who needs them, probably because they got screwed by the game makers and have to start with a HUGE disadvantage, that is considered the advantages of being in an alliance.

If that poor airline needs some money to buy or lease all the new planes listed to them, they can sell their old junk to the richer airlines in the alliance to generate some cashflow.




Why are we even discussing this non-issue in the first place?
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes, decide everything

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #74 on: December 14, 2017, 10:45:58 AM »
“Money transfers” can occur even outside of alliance and often can be much more egregious in nature due to more of a max/min extremes.

Sure. And does it happen often, compared to what happen inside alliances?

Offline tyteen4a03

  • Members
  • Posts: 158
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #75 on: December 14, 2017, 11:16:01 AM »
Sure. And does it happen often, compared to what happen inside alliances?
If a person leaves an existing alliance, sure. I've had to do this to fix my profits.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #76 on: December 14, 2017, 11:16:23 AM »

And if the alliance is able to buy 100 new planes and then sell them to their alliance member who needs them, probably because they got screwed by the game makers and have to start with a HUGE disadvantage, that is considered the advantages of being in an alliance.

If that poor airline needs some money to buy or lease all the new planes listed to them, they can sell their old junk to the richer airlines in the alliance to generate some cashflow.

Why are we even discussing this non-issue in the first place?

We clearly know what you refer to. And I have some remarks:
 - point 1: absolutely, and you've been beneath rules' limits.
 - point 2: you didn't have old junk as you were a brand new airline by then. And officially, no, you couldn't have. You've been screwed, I agree, but that doesn't give you access to special rules as that would have been unfair to all the others (not only me). This is common sense: you got one screwed and unhappy person, but that's no reason to make everybody screwed and unhappy by giving the initial screwed one a bonus that would be considered unfair by numerous players: tell me, how do you quantify the "fair" bonus? Either the screwed one would complain it's not enough, or the others complain it's too much.

That being said, your strategy of occupying the terrain before to prevent the others to grow (you said it, not me) and then restart with everything well prepared within your alliance might be considered not that fair, as it would have given you a really large advantage over others. How realistic could this be? The problem is that I've been moved, and from the advantaged one you became the screwed one. But only to me, not to the others. To the others, you were still advantaged. But what you've done was all within game rules.

So, to be true, your 1st point seems to me a little dishonest:
And if the alliance is able to buy 100 new planes and then sell them to their alliance member who needs them, probably because they got screwed by the game makers and have to start with a HUGE disadvantage, that is considered the advantages of being in an alliance.
"HUGE disadvantage" or not, you would have played the same way, with the same preparation. "Because" ? I don't believe so. But that's only my feeling.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm unfair in what I say, I'm only trying to be the most honest I can, no matter the circumstances. I had this advantage not because I cheated or else, only because you've been wrongly said you couldn't move.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #77 on: December 14, 2017, 11:18:25 AM »
If a person leaves an existing alliance, sure. I've had to do this to fix my profits.

And do you feel this is normal?
Moreover, do you really consider this is not within alliance? Being officially out of the alliance and trading exclusively with your ex-and-soon-to-be-again alliance?

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4460
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #78 on: December 14, 2017, 12:55:58 PM »
And do you feel this is normal?
Moreover, do you really consider this is not within alliance? Being officially out of the alliance and trading exclusively with your ex-and-soon-to-be-again alliance?

That's actually a violation of game rules - dropping out of the alliance to circumvent the sales price limits is unfair play.

Offline MikeS

  • Members
  • Posts: 853

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2017, 01:29:28 PM »
An idea for some mechanics to curb excessive unrealistic trading practices:

 - Airline score take a hit for each sale/purchase below/above market prices. It should effect both trading airlines. The higher the difference to market value, the higher
   the penalty to the airlines' score. It can recover slowly again with time.

 - Score penalty to Alliances when an airline leaves alliance.

 - Airline score take hit for scrapping aircraft less than 25 years old. Again, the bigger the difference the bigger the penalty

Mike

 

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.